A new survey commissioned by the AARP asks respondents to what degree they support or oppose "[s]tarting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them" -- a public option, in other words. The results are interesting, though not necessarily surprising to those who have been closely following the debate.

Not only does a public option enjoy strong support (AARP finds 37 percent strongly supporting such a choice), it enjoys broad support -- a finding based not only in this new survey but also in SurveyUSA polling released last week. Indeed, a supermajority of even Republicans supports a federal program to provide individuals with a choice for their health insurance coverage, with just a third of the party membership opposing such a plan.

So why, again, are supporters of a public option finding such difficulty in Congress?

AndChiefs

08-27-2009, 06:20 AM

This is so very different from basically every other poll I've been seeing recently I'd be interested to see the questions asked and how they were polled.

petegz28

08-27-2009, 06:37 AM

This is so very different from basically every other poll I've been seeing recently I'd be interested to see the questions asked and how they were polled.

I agree. And the AARP is a supporter of such so they have a vested interest in skewing the poll. Sounds to me like the Dems using their supporters to manipulate the info.

In short, the American people have yet to be convinced to step beyond their partisan views, or change
their perspectives on key health care issues. It’s not that reform lacks support – 75% of Democrats and
55% of Independents think that the time for change is now. But there is little consensus about how
reform should be accomplished. These polling results reflect the partisan divide over healthcare that
has been playing out in Congress.

Independents are the key swing vote, and 73% of them believe that the government should be most
financially responsible for making sure that Americans have access to affordable, quality care.
Furthermore, 4 out of 5 Independents support the creation of a new federal health insurance plan that
individuals could purchase if they can’t afford private plans offered to them – the essence of the so‐
called “public option.” But with Congress deadlocked over these issues – and 75% of Independents
stating that any eventual health care legislation should be bipartisan – there is clearly much hard work
ahead if health reform is to happen this year, despite the fact that Americans still trust President Obama
most to do the right thing on the issue.

In spite of the economic downturn and budget shortfalls, the majority of Americans think we
need to address health care reform now.

Specifically, 56% say that it is more important than ever to address the issue, compared to only 32% who
say that the nation cannot afford to take on health care right now.

Consistent with a trend that will recur throughout this report, Democrats and Republicans are deeply
divided on the question of timing: 75% of Democrats are ready to tackle the problem now, while 62% of
Republicans think that we cannot afford reform in the current climate. Independents are more divided,
but lean towards taking action now.

But when the bill comes, the majority of Americans remain unwilling to pay more in taxes or
premiums in order to achieve the reforms. 64% of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in
taxes to expand health coverage to the uninsured, and 74% of those with insurance say that not willing
to pay higher premiums either. Democrats are almost willing to pay higher taxes, but they are the
outliers.

petegz28

08-27-2009, 07:26 AM

Here is the pdf and it has interesting info in it. I don't visit Kos that was just the first choice in google.

In short, the American people have yet to be convinced to step beyond their partisan views, or change
their perspectives on key health care issues. It’s not that reform lacks support – 75% of Democrats and
55% of Independents think that the time for change is now. But there is little consensus about how
reform should be accomplished. These polling results reflect the partisan divide over healthcare that
has been playing out in Congress.

Independents are the key swing vote, and 73% of them believe that the government should be most
financially responsible for making sure that Americans have access to affordable, quality care.
Furthermore, 4 out of 5 Independents support the creation of a new federal health insurance plan that
individuals could purchase if they can’t afford private plans offered to them – the essence of the so‐
called “public option.” But with Congress deadlocked over these issues – and 75% of Independents
stating that any eventual health care legislation should be bipartisan – there is clearly much hard work
ahead if health reform is to happen this year, despite the fact that Americans still trust President Obama
most to do the right thing on the issue.

In spite of the economic downturn and budget shortfalls, the majority of Americans think we
need to address health care reform now.

Specifically, 56% say that it is more important than ever to address the issue, compared to only 32% who
say that the nation cannot afford to take on health care right now.

Consistent with a trend that will recur throughout this report, Democrats and Republicans are deeply
divided on the question of timing: 75% of Democrats are ready to tackle the problem now, while 62% of
Republicans think that we cannot afford reform in the current climate. Independents are more divided,
but lean towards taking action now.

But when the bill comes, the majority of Americans remain unwilling to pay more in taxes or
premiums in order to achieve the reforms. 64% of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in
taxes to expand health coverage to the uninsured, and 74% of those with insurance say that not willing
to pay higher premiums either. Democrats are almost willing to pay higher taxes, but they are the
outliers.

You are just repeating what most of us have said all along. People want something for nothing. And the politicians put the idea in their head that they can have just that.

dirk digler

08-27-2009, 07:34 AM

You are just repeating what most of us have said all along. People want something for nothing. And the politicians put the idea in their head that they can have just that.

I don't read it that way at all. They want the government to provide the same level of insurance they have now at basically the same price they have now or better. They don't want to have to pay alot more for shittier coverage.

petegz28

08-27-2009, 07:36 AM

I don't read it that way at all. They want the government to provide the same level of insurance they have now at basically the same price they have now or better. They don't want to have to pay alot more for shittier coverage.

Depends on who "they" are. I know a lot of "they" who don't want the Fed Gov involved at all. Again, I think the majority want some sort of reform. I also think the majority want the Fed Gov involved with controlling the actual "plans" as little as possible.

dirk digler

08-27-2009, 07:45 AM

Depends on who "they" are. I know a lot of "they" who don't want the Fed Gov involved at all. Again, I think the majority want some sort of reform. I also think the majority want the Fed Gov involved with controlling the actual "plans" as little as possible.

At least in this poll they would be a large majority of the people in the country. This is just one poll there are others that show different.

petegz28

08-27-2009, 07:59 AM

At least in this poll they would be a large majority of the people in the country. This is just one poll there are others that show different.

And what do you think "they" would say if they were told aside from the public option they would have to go through the Fed Gov to get their private insurance?

The public option as presented is nothing of the sort, imo.

jAZ

08-27-2009, 08:17 AM

This is so very different from basically every other poll I've been seeing recently I'd be interested to see the questions asked and how they were polled.

From the article above:

""[s]tarting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them"

They poll chose these words carefully, no doubt. It's not the media name for the discussion (which has become tainted), it's a description of a public option.

petegz28

08-27-2009, 08:21 AM

From the article above:

""[s]tarting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them"

They poll chose these words carefully, no doubt. It's not the media name for the discussion (which has become tainted), it's a description of a public option.

Then the title of the thread\article\poll result is misleading.

Chief Henry

08-27-2009, 08:28 AM

AARP should put the $$$ figure of how much the DEMS want to cut away from medicare in the next 10 years to help pay for the natinal health care plan. AARP should do another poll that lays out the facts, but they won't.

jAZ

08-27-2009, 08:56 AM

Then the title of the thread\article\poll result is misleading.

Perhaps somewhat, but I didn't quote "Public Option". And I'm not sure how I'd fit that quote in the subject line.

jAZ

08-27-2009, 08:57 AM

AARP should put the $$$ figure of how much the DEMS want to cut away from medicare in the next 10 years to help pay for the natinal health care plan. AARP should do another poll that lays out the facts, but they won't.

Maybe they could put the benefits cuts ("$0") and the ones that the Republicans have tried to implement over the years ("100%").

vailpass

08-27-2009, 09:05 AM

Interesting. I would like to see whatever plan they come up with put to a national vote. Call a special election where every registered voter in this country gets a say. No electoral college voodoo just straight popular vote.
Are there enough welfare suckers and college kids to swing Big Brother Health Inc.?

RINGLEADER

08-27-2009, 11:50 PM

From the article above:

""[s]tarting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them"

They poll chose these words carefully, no doubt. It's not the media name for the discussion (which has become tainted), it's a description of a public option.

I bet if you asked if they were for "a government health insurance plan that would dictate the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer while raising taxes to support the costs associated with covering those who can't afford private plans and simultaneously running up a deficit of $240 billion during the first ten years" you'd get a different set of responses...

RINGLEADER

08-27-2009, 11:52 PM

Maybe they could put the benefits cuts ("$0") and the ones that the Republicans have tried to implement over the years ("100%").

Where to start with this one...

jAZ

08-27-2009, 11:55 PM

I bet if you asked if they were for "a government health insurance plan that would dictate the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer while raising taxes to support the costs associated with covering those who can't afford private plans and simultaneously running up a deficit of $240 billion during the first ten years" you'd get a different set of responses...

That would be a lie though, which is SOP for the Republicans lately.

Chief Henry

08-28-2009, 04:01 AM

Maybe they could put the benefits cuts ("$0") and the ones that the Republicans have tried to implement over the years ("100%").

Tell me Jiz, how much money are the dems thinking they can save over the next 10 years in Medicare?

petegz28

08-28-2009, 07:01 AM

That would be a lie though, which is SOP for the Republicans lately.

Yea, the Dems NEVER lie, do they?

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 07:37 AM

That would be a lie though, which is SOP for the Republicans lately.

Of course it's a lie...it has to be...Obama told you so... :rolleyes:

Where's the lie?

"a government health insurance plan"

"that would dictate the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer"

"while raising taxes to support the costs associated with covering those who can't afford private plans"

"and simultaneously running up a deficit of $240 billion during the first ten years"

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 07:40 AM

And the operative word in this AARP question is "Option"...because that's one of the things the Dem bill is good at removing...

jAZ

08-28-2009, 07:56 AM

"that would dictate the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer"
this

Donger

08-28-2009, 08:01 AM

this

You aren't aware that HR 3200 requires all insurance plans, including the so-called private options, to follow the standards set forth in the public option?

SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.

(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 08:10 AM

this

You're just wrong buddy.

I see Donger provided you with the facts in post 30 -- not that I expect you'll let those get in the way.

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 08:11 AM

You aren't aware that HR 3200 requires all insurance plans, including the so-called private options, to follow the standards set forth in the public option?

SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.

(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

FactCheck.org agrees with this. According to their analysis:

In fact, under the House bill, some employers might have to modify plans after a five-year grace period if they don’t meet minimum benefits standards.

Furthermore, some firms are likely to buy different coverage for their workers than they have now, or simply drop coverage and pay a penalty instead, leaving workers to buy their own private coverage or go on a new federal insurance plan.

patteeu

08-28-2009, 08:42 AM

You're just wrong buddy.

I see Donger provided you with the facts in post 30 -- not that I expect you'll let those get in the way.

jAZ will rely on the fact that there is only a minimum requirement for coverage, not complete control over what a plan can offer. In other words, the private insurers always have the option to gold plate their coverage, they just don't have the option to drop coverage below the benefit minimum. Of course, gold plated plans would be forced into niche markets or out of the market altogether so his objection is pretty lame, but that's what's going on inside his head.

Donger

08-28-2009, 08:49 AM

jAZ will rely on the fact that there is only a minimum requirement for coverage, not complete control over what a plan can offer. In other words, the private insurers always have the option to gold plate their coverage, they just don't have the option to drop coverage below the benefit minimum. Of course, gold plated plans would be forced into niche markets or out of the market altogether so his objection is pretty lame, but that's what's going on inside his head.

What RL asserted (that would dictate the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer) is completely accurate.

HR 3200 dictates that private plans offer and maintain at least the benefit standards of the socialist plan. If that isn't dictating the type of coverage, I don't know what is.

patteeu

08-28-2009, 08:56 AM

What RL asserted (that would dictate the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer) is completely accurate.

HR 3200 dictates that private plans offer and maintain at least the benefit standards of the socialist plan. If that isn't dictating the type of coverage, I don't know what is.

It's certainly far too accurate to call it a "lie" as jAZ has done.

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 10:53 AM

jAZ will rely on the fact that there is only a minimum requirement for coverage, not complete control over what a plan can offer. In other words, the private insurers always have the option to gold plate their coverage, they just don't have the option to drop coverage below the benefit minimum. Of course, gold plated plans would be forced into niche markets or out of the market altogether so his objection is pretty lame, but that's what's going on inside his head.

Not the point.

If the HHS or the other administrators of the plan (where applicable) says that the minimum requirement for coverage includes full funding of abortions for underage girls it will have to include it. The minimum standard doesn't necessarily mean a baseline that provides better coverage.

You can write language very easily that sets a minimum benchmark that actually provides LESS service. It's quite easy in fact. And since those minimum standards are punted to the future they can be manipulated (as other elements of the bill are designed for future manipulation) to restrict coverage and the private plans will have to conform.

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 10:57 AM

It's certainly far too accurate to call it a "lie" as jAZ has done.

Whenever jAZ and his brethren get called out on the specifics of the plan that they clearly don't understand they run away. They've done it for weeks when they were claiming there is no provision for funding abortion in the bill or that it wouldn't add to the deficit or when they say that it allows you to keep your insurance or won't cover illegal immigrants. When confronted by the facts they change the subject.

ChiTown

08-28-2009, 11:02 AM

this

*crickets*

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 11:32 AM

*crickets*

JAZ and Orange and Dirk, etc. are smart guys but it makes you wonder why they try so hard to believe Obamacare is something it clearly is not. I mean you really have to bury your head in the sand deep to reach some of the conclusions I've heard espoused over the last few weeks:

* The House bill doesn't require private insurance to meet standards set by the government;

* The CBO isn't a reliable independent source because their previous Medicare estimates vastly under-projected shortfalls (which only supports the concern that Obama's $1 trillion price tag will actually be closer to $3 trillion if the same math error is applied to Obamacare);

* The House bill is deficit neutral even though the CBO says it will add $240 billion to the deficit in the first ten years (and create an unfunded mandate in the process);

* The House bill has no provisions for funding of abortion (it does according to independent non-partisan analysis that was cited by the Obama campaign during the election);

* People can keep their current insurance (even though the bill is crafted in most circumstances to incentivize employers to drop their plans);

* Illegals don't qualify as "individuals" under the law (being an individual is the only requirement to join the government system);

Etc., etc., etc....

Inspector

08-28-2009, 12:04 PM

Whenever jAZ and his brethren get called out on the specifics of the plan that they clearly don't understand they run away. They've done it for weeks when they were claiming there is no provision for funding abortion in the bill or that it wouldn't add to the deficit or when they say that it allows you to keep your insurance or won't cover illegal immigrants. When confronted by the facts they change the subject.

C'mon...jAZ will come back and explain it. Just need to be patient.

Right jAZ?

Right?

And really, it hasn't been that long since you posted this. Just need to give him time. He'll set you straight.

Right?

orange

08-28-2009, 12:18 PM

C'mon...jAZ will come back and explain it. Just need to be patient.

Right jAZ?

Right?

And really, it hasn't been that long since you posted this. Just need to give him time. He'll set you straight.

Right?

jAZ is online here HOURS AND HOURS every week.

The fact that he's not here at your beck and call I see as a POSITIVE note that perhaps he's not totally addicted.

As for RINGLEADER's arguments, they've gone round-and-round for a month. Nothing's going to change. Take the first one in #39 - "* The House bill doesn't require private insurance to meet standards set by the government;"

This is CLEARLY not the same as "that would dictate the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer" in #22 and #27, yet RINGLEADER has asserted in this thread that they are the same. What's the point of arguing with someone who insists A is B?

penchief

08-28-2009, 12:54 PM

I agree. And the AARP is a supporter of such so they have a vested interest in skewing the poll. Sounds to me like the Dems using their supporters to manipulate the info.

You mean like when the AARP braintrust went along with Bush's corporatization of Medicare without input from its members?

Brock

08-28-2009, 12:56 PM

You mean like when the AARP braintrust went along with Bush's corporatization of Medicare without input from its members?

Yep, like that.

penchief

08-28-2009, 01:06 PM

Yep, like that.

Seems to me that a poll targeting AARP members is nothing more than that. I don't see how that can be any different than targeting any other segment of society. I don't know how that is manipulation unless an attempt is made to suggest that those numbers are reflective of something other than the targeted group.

On the other hand, it does seem a bit manipulative to target a group's leadership for support and then claim that the solicited support is reflective of the people whom the leadership is supposed to represent.

JMO.

Inspector

08-28-2009, 01:17 PM

jAZ is online here HOURS AND HOURS every week.

The fact that he's not here at your beck and call I see as a POSITIVE note that perhaps he's not totally addicted.

As for RINGLEADER's arguments, they've gone round-and-round for a month. Nothing's going to change. Take the first one in #39 - "* The House bill doesn't require private insurance to meet standards set by the government;"

This is CLEARLY not the same as "that would dictate the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer" in #22 and #27, yet RINGLEADER has asserted in this thread that they are the same. What's the point of arguing with someone who insists A is B?

I still think he'll explain it. Nobody had any timelines anyway. Settle down...it's just the innernet.

Donger

08-28-2009, 01:32 PM

jAZ is online here HOURS AND HOURS every week.

The fact that he's not here at your beck and call I see as a POSITIVE note that perhaps he's not totally addicted.

As for RINGLEADER's arguments, they've gone round-and-round for a month. Nothing's going to change. Take the first one in #39 - "* The House bill doesn't require private insurance to meet standards set by the government;"

This is CLEARLY not the same as "that would dictate the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer" in #22 and #27, yet RINGLEADER has asserted in this thread that they are the same. What's the point of arguing with someone who insists A is B?

Do you acknowledge that HR 3200 requires that private plans at least meet the benefit standards of the public option?

orange

08-28-2009, 01:44 PM

Do you acknowledge that HR 3200 requires that private plans at least meet the benefit standards of the public option?

Certainly. Do you acknowledge that setting minimum standards is not "dictating the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer?"

Does requiring all foods to meet hygiene standards "dictate the type of foods that all providers can offer?"

Donger

08-28-2009, 01:46 PM

Certainly. Do you acknowledge that setting minimum standards is not "dictating the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer?"

No. By requiring the private plans to met minimum standards, the government is indeed dictating the type of coverage the private plans must meet.

Also, I've heard Obama say that if I like my plan, I can keep it. What if that plan that I like does not meet the minimum standards?

orange

08-28-2009, 01:48 PM

Also, I've heard Obama say that if I like my plan, I can keep it. What if that plan that I like does not meet the minimum standards?

Then you're screwed. Obama is neither God nor the Pope. His words are not infallible. Nor do I think anyone expects them to be.

dirk digler

08-28-2009, 01:48 PM

Do you acknowledge that HR 3200 requires that private plans at least meet the benefit standards of the public option?

I could be wrong but I thought that was to participate in the "Exchange"

orange

08-28-2009, 01:49 PM

No. By requiring the private plans to met minimum standards, the government is indeed dictating the type of coverage the private plans must meet.

As for that, I entirely disagree with your claim.

As I pointed out with my food example.

Donger

08-28-2009, 01:51 PM

Then you're screwed. Obama is neither God nor the Pope. His words are not infallible. Nor do I think anyone expects them to be.

Oh. So which is it? Is he unaware of the truth about how HR 3200 dictates minimum standards for private insurance (not unlike many of his followers, I've noticed) or does he know the truth and is being intentionally deceitful?

Donger

08-28-2009, 01:53 PM

As for that, I entirely disagree with your claim.

As I pointed out with my food example.

Yes, I see you added. The answer is yes. I assume that you are referring HAACP?

orange

08-28-2009, 01:54 PM

Oh. So which is it? Is he unaware of the truth about how HR 3200 dictates minimum standards for private insurance (not unlike many of his followers, I've noticed) or does he know the truth and is being intentionally deceitful?

I believe his opinion is more along the lines of "private plans that people like and want to keep will ALREADY MEET the standards."

The "standards" they're talking about are the main points of the whole bill - no cancellations, no disqualifications due to pre-existing conditions, etc. They're spelled out in the beginning paragraphs of the Bill and elsewhere.

Donger

08-28-2009, 01:55 PM

I believe his opinion is more along the lines of "private plans that people like and want to keep will ALREADY MEET the standards."

The "standards" they're talking about are the main points of the whole bill - no cancellations, no disqualifications due to pre-existing conditions, etc. They're spelled out in the beginning paragraphs of the Bill and elsewhere.

Well, that isn't what he says.

orange

08-28-2009, 01:58 PM

Yes, I see you added. The answer is yes. I assume that you are referring HAACP?

Not really, no. I'm referring to a century of food and drug regulations begun by Teddy Roosevelt.

Donger

08-28-2009, 02:31 PM

Not really, no. I'm referring to a century of food and drug regulations begun by Teddy Roosevelt.

Okay. Well, in that case, the federal government is indeed mandating a minimum requirement. Therefore, they are dictating that the food you eat be a certain type (won't make you sick).

You aren't aware that HR 3200 requires all insurance plans, including the so-called private options, to follow the standards set forth in the public option?

SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.

(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

... if they choose to participate in the "Exchange". They are not required to particpate.

Donger

08-28-2009, 05:21 PM

... if they choose to participate in the "Exchange". They are not required to particpate.

What?

jAZ

08-28-2009, 05:24 PM

What?

Those rules you quoted are rules that govern the insurance programs that choose to particpate in the "exchange". Participation is not mandatory.

mlyonsd

08-28-2009, 05:25 PM

Should be 100%. Screw the Elephants

That's the elephant in the room.

Donger

08-28-2009, 05:27 PM

Those rules you quoted are rules that govern the insurance programs that choose to particpate in the "exchange". Participation is not mandatory.

Here you go:

SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.

(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

(b) Choice of Coverage

(1) NON-EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan that is not an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, such plan may offer such coverage in addition to the essential benefits package as the QHBP offering entity may specify.

(2) EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS- In the case of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, such plan is required under section 203 to provide specified levels of benefits and, in the case of a plan offering a premium-plus level of benefits, provide additional benefits.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) CONTINUATION OF OFFERING OF SEPARATE EXCEPTED BENEFITS COVERAGE- Nothing in this division shall be construed as affecting the offering of health benefits in the form of excepted benefits (described in section 102(b)(1)(B)(ii)) if such benefits are offered under a separate policy, contract, or certificate of insurance.

(c) No Restrictions on Coverage Unrelated to Clinical Appropriateness- A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any restriction (other than cost-sharing) unrelated to clinical appropriateness on the coverage of the health care items and services.

orange

08-28-2009, 05:31 PM

You could theoretically get a "non-qualified" plan, but you would still be taxed/fee'd as if you have no insurance.

Where you would find such a thing is anyone's guess. FBN Insurance, perhaps.

Why you would is an even bigger question.

jAZ

08-28-2009, 05:34 PM

(1) NON-EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan that is not an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, such plan may offer such coverage in addition to the essential benefits package as the QHBP offering entity may specify.
If company XYZ chooses to particpate in the exchange they must offer ABC-type plan, but may also have plans outside the exchange. They don't *have* to particpate in the exchange at all.

Donger

08-28-2009, 05:35 PM

You could theoretically get a "non-qualified" plan, but you would still be taxed/fee'd as if you have no insurance.

Where you would find such a thing is anyone's guess. FBN Insurance, perhaps.

Why you would is an even bigger question.

Orange, could you perhaps assist jAZ with this? Perhaps he'd feel better acknowledging the facts from you instead of me.

Donger

08-28-2009, 05:36 PM

If company XYZ chooses to particpate in the exchange they must offer ABC-type plan, but may also have plans outside the exchange. They don't *have* to particpate in the exchange at all.

No one has stated that they must participate in the Exchange, have they?

Donger

08-28-2009, 05:39 PM

Rather, that if you choose to opt for a private plan (non-Exchange), that plan must meet certain benefits set forth by the legislation.

So, what RL wrote was entirely accurate and you are very wrong to say that what he wrote is incorrect and a "lie."

He's telling the facts.

You are not.

orange

08-28-2009, 05:45 PM

So, what RL wrote was entirely accurate and you are very wrong to say that what he wrote is incorrect and a "lie."

Sorry. No way. Setting minimum standards is in no conceivable way "dictating the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer."

Donger

08-28-2009, 05:53 PM

Sorry. No way. Setting minimum standards is in no conceivable way "dictating the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer."

Sorry, I was asking for you to explain to jAZ that the private plans must meet the minimum benefits of the public plan. He seems to think that is not the case.

Donger

08-28-2009, 05:54 PM

And, by requiring the private plans to meet said minimums, the government is indeed dictating the type of coverage.

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 06:20 PM

Sorry. No way. Setting minimum standards is in no conceivable way "dictating the types of coverage that all insurance, government or private, can offer."

How isn't it?

Just because it's a "minimum standard" doesn't mean that everything else that isn't the public plan has to be better...

orange

08-28-2009, 06:32 PM

How isn't it?

Just because it's a "minimum standard" doesn't mean that everything else that isn't the public plan has to be better...

Here's a 12-page guide to telling health insurance plans apart.

These people seem to think there's a lot more to it than "can they cancel my plan," and "are pre-existing conditions covered."

Don't expect me to quote the whole thing, though.

http://www.foreignborn.com/self-help/health_insurance/index.htm

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 06:35 PM

Here's a 12-page guide to telling health insurance plans apart.

These people seem to think there's a lot more to it than "can they cancel my plan," and "are pre-existing conditions covered."

Don't expect me to quote the whole thing, though.

http://www.foreignborn.com/self-help/health_insurance/index.htm

I appreciate your research Orange but again you miss the point.

Does the health care bill in the House allow government to modify minimum standards in the future or not?

Do all plans, public and private, have to conform to those modified minimum standards?

What happens if "fairness" becomes a minimum standard? Because I don't think you can show me a passage in the Bill that would exclude it as a future doctrine for what constitutes "minimum standards".

orange

08-28-2009, 06:40 PM

I appreciate your research Orange but again you miss the point.

Does the health care bill in the House allow government to modify minimum standards in the future or not?

Do all plans, public and private, have to conform to those modified minimum standards?

What happens if "fairness" becomes a minimum standard?

The main point of the current bill(s) is to get everybody covered. Everything else is secondary or below.

I am willing to concede that some of the lowest-grade plans will be forced off the market. I don't think many will be effected, though, and those that ARE affected will step-up to a better public option.

A bigger adjustment will be healthy and affluent young people who currently CHOOSE not to buy insurance. These folks are going to face some adjustments. Yes, they're going to have to pay something, probably for other people's benefit. Good. When they're older and no longer so healthy and CHOOSE to buy insurance, their coverage will be cheaper because it's subsidized by future young, healthy, affluent adults who will also bitch about it.

orange

08-28-2009, 06:42 PM

As for raising the minimum standards in the future - that will be just as fraught with controversy as this current bill. I see no reason to try to fight a battle now that won't come up for ten or twenty years.

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 06:44 PM

The main point of the current bill(s) is to get everybody covered. Everything else is secondary or below.

I am willing to concede that some of the lowest-grade plans will be forced off the market. I don't think many will be effected, though, and those that ARE affected will step-up to a better public option.

A bigger adjustment will be healthy and affluent young people who currently CHOOSE not to buy insurance. These folks are going to face some adjustments. Yes, they're going to have to pay something, probably for other people's benefit. Good.

This I agree with this almost entirely.

I just believe there are easier -- maybe even better -- ways to accomplish that goal and reduce costs. The bill doesn't need to be 1000 pages and it doesn't need to try to provide for very political issues if getting people covered and bringing down the costs are the real issue.

And I have no faith in government to be able to restrain itself. I respect those who feel differently, but when "fairness" becomes an objective of health care we're all in deep, deep trouble...

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 06:46 PM

As for raising the minimum standards in the future - that will be just as fraught with controversy as this current bill. I see no reason to try to fight a battle now that won't come up for ten or twenty years.

Why would you ever want to give the government the freedom to tell you what kind of health care a doctor can be reimbursed for (and, by extension, provide)?

I really don't understand why you would want such a thing.

Especially in light of the fact that their attempts to provide such a thing have proven to not work.

I mean if you want to give it up that's your right but why should I have to -- especially if all of the evidence points to the plan not working before they even enact it?

:shrug:

orange

08-28-2009, 06:50 PM

Especially in light of the fact that their attempts to provide such a thing have proven to not work.

They've been proven not to work? Really?

Riddle me this: what treatments are denied to Medicare recipients?

Donger

08-28-2009, 06:52 PM

The main point of the current bill(s) is to get everybody covered. Everything else is secondary or below.

I am willing to concede that some of the lowest-grade plans will be forced off the market. I don't think many will be effected, though, and those that ARE affected will step-up to a better public option.

A bigger adjustment will be healthy and affluent young people who currently CHOOSE not to buy insurance. These folks are going to face some adjustments. Yes, they're going to have to pay something, probably for other people's benefit. Good. When they're older and no longer so healthy and CHOOSE to buy insurance, their coverage will be cheaper because it's subsidized by future young, healthy, affluent adults who will also bitch about it.

For the record, orange, you may be a misguided Donkey fan on top of being a pinko, but I appreciate your ability and willingness to argue with the opposition with civility and grace.

It is appreciated and admired.

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 06:54 PM

They've been proven not to work? Really?

Riddle me this: what treatments are denied to Medicare recipients?

Medicare is on an unsustainable path towards bankruptcy.

Widen your view and pretty much every attempt government has made to administer plans in other countries are filled with examples of rationing, slow service, and poor care.

The CBO projections -- which as Dirk points out are probably wrong on the low side of things -- show that Obamacare saves about $2 billion -- not hundreds of billions -- while adding hundreds of billions to the deficit. And that's just within the ten year window they can look at using projections that don't anticipate another economic downturn.

orange

08-28-2009, 06:56 PM

For the record, orange, you may be a misguided Donkey fan on top of being a pinko, but I appreciate your ability and willingness to argue with the opposition with civility and grace.

It is appreciated and admired.

I worked almost 30 years for a boss who was an original DittoHead. We could argue about anything, then go for a beer.

KCTitus

08-28-2009, 06:57 PM

If my existing plan doesnt allow for pre-existing conditions ('my existing plan' equals EVERY PLAN CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE) then my existing plan would not qualify under HR3200 to meet 'minimum' standards.

The point here is not what or who or how participates, the government does not have to make a profit and therefore can require all sorts of things in their 'minimum' coverage until private plans are all but non-existent.

The overall goal is to eliminate the private insurers and have the government be the sole insurer and regulator as to who gets what kind of healthcare.

The rest of this is nonsense.

Donger

08-28-2009, 06:59 PM

I worked almost 30 years for a boss who was an original DittoHead. We could argue about anything, then go for a beer.

We may have to do that ourselves one day.

Donger

08-28-2009, 07:02 PM

If my existing plan doesnt allow for pre-existing conditions ('my existing plan' equals EVERY PLAN CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE) then my existing plan would not qualify under HR3200 to meet 'minimum' standards.

The point here is not what or who or how participates, the government does not have to make a profit and therefore can require all sorts of things in their 'minimum' coverage until private plans are all but non-existent.

The overall goal is to eliminate the private insurers and have the government be the sole insurer and regulator as to who gets what kind of healthcare.

The rest of this is nonsense.

Not to mention that ALL Americans are required to have coverage. If that isn't "dictating the type of coverage" that you have, again, I don't know what is.

RINGLEADER

08-28-2009, 07:02 PM

If my existing plan doesnt allow for pre-existing conditions ('my existing plan' equals EVERY PLAN CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE) then my existing plan would not qualify under HR3200 to meet 'minimum' standards.

The point here is not what or who or how participates, the government does not have to make a profit and therefore can require all sorts of things in their 'minimum' coverage until private plans are all but non-existent.

The overall goal is to eliminate the private insurers and have the government be the sole insurer and regulator as to who gets what kind of healthcare.

The rest of this is nonsense.

This is largely true too unfortunately...

But politicians like to play politics...on both sides of the aisle...

KCTitus

08-28-2009, 09:14 PM

This is largely true too unfortunately...

But politicians like to play politics...on both sides of the aisle...

Hence the problem. Didnt mean to kill the thread, but it's pretty obvious the goal of this legislation is to determine who lives and who dies.

Newsflash for the UI's...if you're not one of 536 people, you're worm food

If by "EVERY PLAN CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE" you exclused nearly every employer based group plan, then you might be right. Every person who had employer based coverage for 12 months before switching jobs, will have immediate coverage even for pre-existing conditions.

jAZ

08-30-2009, 01:38 AM

No one has stated that they must participate in the Exchange, have they?

The two quotes you cited have NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand. No matter what sort of snark you wish throw out and no matter how hard you work to avoid admitting that fact.

jAZ

08-30-2009, 01:47 AM

You're just wrong buddy.

I see Donger provided you with the facts in post 30 -- not that I expect you'll let those get in the way.

If you were talking about what Donger quoted in post 30, I'd expect both of you to admit that you were wildly wrong here.

By "I'd expect" I mean, I'm not counting on it from either of you.

jAZ

08-30-2009, 01:50 AM

Not to mention that ALL Americans are required to have coverage. If that isn't "dictating the type of coverage" that you have, again, I don't know what is.

You are very good at manufacturing completely unrelated statements as a failed effort to defend RINGLEADER's lie.

Are we on to the 4th or 5th different version of why it wasn't a lie?

patteeu

08-30-2009, 07:07 AM

If you were talking about what Donger quoted in post 30, I'd expect both of you to admit that you were wildly wrong here.

By "I'd expect" I mean, I'm not counting on it from either of you.

What was wildly wrong was calling it a lie. You can come up with your own accurate characterization that sounds different than RINGLEADER's, but his wasn't a lie as we've already discussed in the thread. Can I expect an admission from you?

jAZ

08-30-2009, 08:30 AM

What was wildly wrong was calling it a lie. You can come up with your own accurate characterization that sounds different than RINGLEADER's, but his wasn't a lie as we've already discussed in the thread. Can I expect an admission from you?

Unless I missed a substantive post among the numbing array of blather (you suck, you're a communist, Obama sucks, Obama is a communist and the astonishingly pathetic "crickets" backslapping that gets crushed with a single post from me every time because if I've ever demonstrated anything around here it's that I don't run away from arguments here)... that has come to fill this and most other threads these days, I've shown that none of the 4-5 substantive efforts to rationalization of RINGLEADER's statement has any standing.

***SPRAYER

08-30-2009, 08:33 AM

I suck, I'm a communist, Obama sucks, Obama is a communist

Is somebody deprogramming you?

Donger

08-30-2009, 08:39 AM

Unless I missed a substantive post among the numbing array of blather (you suck, you're a communist, Obama sucks, Obama is a communist and the astonishingly pathetic "crickets" backslapping that gets crushed with a single post from me every time because if I've ever demonstrated anything around here it's that I don't run away from arguments here)... that has come to fill this and most other threads these days, I've shown that none of the 4-5 substantive efforts to rationalization of RINGLEADER's statement has any standing.

Surely after you've been given the evidence of that fact, you'll acknowledge it, yes?

The funny part is that you either were aware of it, and lied, or were ignorant of it. I suppose it's a good thing that the resistance actually reads the stuff you're supporting, eh?

Donger

08-30-2009, 08:41 AM

You are very good at manufacturing completely unrelated statements as a failed effort to defend RINGLEADER's lie.

Are we on to the 4th or 5th different version of why it wasn't a lie?

It isn't unrelated at all. Is not being required to have insurance dictating a type of coverage?

patteeu

08-30-2009, 09:01 AM

Unless I missed a substantive post among the numbing array of blather (you suck, you're a communist, Obama sucks, Obama is a communist and the astonishingly pathetic "crickets" backslapping that gets crushed with a single post from me every time because if I've ever demonstrated anything around here it's that I don't run away from arguments here)... that has come to fill this and most other threads these days, I've shown that none of the 4-5 substantive efforts to rationalization of RINGLEADER's statement has any standing.

I'll take that as a "no".

You might not like the way RINGLEADER characterized the bill, but if it requires private insurers to offer (at least) A, B, C, or prevents them from offering X, Y, Z but leaves them free to choose what to offer within those constraints, it is "dictat[ing]" to them what they "can offer". You don't like the connotation that there is no discretion allowed, but it's just a connotation, not an explicit statement. Connotations can support inferences but they don't prove them. Your inference was reasonable but it wasn't so solid that it entitled you to call him a liar. As usual, you overplayed the dishonesty card. :shake:

Surely after you've been given the evidence of that fact, you'll acknowledge it, yes?
You've repeatedly tried make this claim by posting selections of the bill that explain how if the company CHOOSES to do business through the health insurance exchange they have the minimum benefits requirement.

RINGLEADER even agreed that those selected sections were exactly what he was talking about.

As I pointed out already, any insurance company can reject those minimum requirements by not doing business through the "exchange".

jAZ

08-30-2009, 11:12 AM

I'll take that as a "no".

You might not like the way RINGLEADER characterized the bill, but if it requires private insurers to offer (at least) A, B, C, or prevents them from offering X, Y, Z but leaves them free to choose what to offer within those constraints, it is "dictat[ing]" to them what they "can offer". You don't like the connotation that there is no discretion allowed, but it's just a connotation, not an explicit statement. Connotations can support inferences but they don't prove them. Your inference was reasonable but it wasn't so solid that it entitled you to call him a liar. As usual, you overplayed the dishonesty card. :shake:

No, companies can reject the exchange's minimum restrictions by not doing any business through the exchange.

Donger

08-30-2009, 11:29 AM

You've repeatedly tried make this claim by posting selections of the bill that explain how if the company CHOOSES to do business through the health insurance exchange they have the minimum benefits requirement.

RINGLEADER even agreed that those selected sections were exactly what he was talking about.

As I pointed out already, any insurance company can reject those minimum requirements by not doing business through the "exchange".

You are wrong. See 63:

(1) NON-EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan that is not an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, such plan may offer such coverage in addition to the essential benefits package as the QHBP offering entity may specify.

In other words, non-exchange-participating plans have to meet the minimum standards.

jAZ

08-30-2009, 11:39 AM

You are wrong. See 63:

(1) NON-EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan that is not an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, such plan may offer such coverage in addition to the essential benefits package as the QHBP offering entity may specify.

In other words, non-exchange-participating plans have to meet the minimum standards.

Once again...

"Non-exchange-particpating health benefits plans" provided by EXCHANGE-PARTICPATING COMPANIES who have some plans in the exchange but have OTHER plans that are outside of it.

Once again...

Companies can reject the exchange's minimum restrictions by not doing any business through the exchange.

jAZ

08-30-2009, 11:52 AM

If form holds true, this is where, after posting several sections describing the mandates put on those companies who choose to do business through the exchange, you come back and rather than saying, "ok... those mandates don't apply to all companies, just those who choose to do busienss in the exchange"... you'll say "no one said they have to do business in the exchange".

Donger

08-30-2009, 12:06 PM

Once again...

"Non-exchange-particpating health benefits plans" provided by EXCHANGE-PARTICPATING COMPANIES who have some plans in the exchange but have OTHER plans that are outside of it.

Once again...

Companies can reject the exchange's minimum restrictions by not doing any business through the exchange.

Okay, I think I see what you are saying now. But as I understand it, that only applies to an existing individual policy. What happens if an individual wants to get a new plan?

jAZ

08-30-2009, 12:08 PM

You are wrong. See 63:

(1) NON-EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan that is not an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, such plan may offer such coverage in addition to the essential benefits package as the QHBP offering entity may specify.

In other words, non-exchange-participating plans have to meet the minimum standards.

And for the record, your bolded summary of even just this quoted section is entirely wrong.

The quoted section says that a company that chooses to participate will be able to offer a non-exchange plan so long as their exchange plan meets the requirements.

Donger

08-30-2009, 12:18 PM

And for the record, your bolded summary of even just this quoted section is entirely wrong.

The quoted section says that a company that chooses to participate will be able to offer a non-exchange plan so long as their exchange plan meets the requirements.

Here:

http://opencrs.com/document/R40724/

In general, H.R. 3200 would require individuals to maintain health insurance and employers to either provide insurance or pay into a fund, with penalties/taxes for non-compliance. Several insurance market reforms would be made, such as modified community rating and guaranteed issue and renewal. Both the individual and employer mandates would be linked to acceptable health insurance coverage, which would meet required minimum standards and incorporate the market reforms included in the bill. Acceptable coverage would include (1) coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (QHBP), which could be offered either through the newly created Health Insurance Exchange (the Exchange) or outside the Exchange through new employer plans; (2) grandfathered employment based plans; (3) grandfathered nongroup plans; and (4) other coverage, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Donger

08-30-2009, 12:22 PM

Did you miss this question, jAZ?

"Is not being required to have insurance dictating a type of coverage?"

patteeu

08-30-2009, 12:41 PM

jAZ is hiding behind the same kind of mythical loophole that will not exist in reality that Obama hides behind when he says that the democrats plan doesn't have anything to do with moving us toward single payer.